https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.
- SCOTUS, Trump v United States (2024)
Oh.
My.
Goodness.
Let's be clear about this.
SCOTUS has now held that the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. It also therefore follows that the current and any future President also has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.
Let that sink in a bit - absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.
What this effectively means is that SCOTUS at law has handed plenary powers to the President of the United States of America, provided that it can be successfully argued that it is in the course of official duties.
What is an official duty? Anything the President says it is.
What does this actually mean in real terms? It says that at law, the President of the United States of America is above the law. This is not just the powers of a king being handed to the President, because even a king is subject to the law. No. This is the powers of a god being handed to the President, because at law they now have absolute immunity for what they do.
If the President wants to use the authority of Presidential power to have his political enemies imprisoned, or murdered, then that's fine - The President now has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. If the President wants to use the authority of Presidential power to commit domestic crimes against humanity, like gassing people from ethnicities that he does not like, then that's fine - The President now has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. If the President wants to use the authority of Presidential power to money launder, sell arms, shut down media organisations, close corporations, etc cetera, then that's fine - The President now has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.
Not even in English law, which did apply in the United States and still does as far a precedent goes (for things which still might be outstanding where the law has not been touched since 1776), does a king have such godlike powers. The whole English Civil War which saw Charles I arrested, tried, and tested for tyranny, conclusively rejected the doctrine of the divine right of kings, when the High Court found Charles guilty of tyranny. Apart from the giggles of Oliver Cromwell who became Lord Protector, the axefall through the neck of Charles I on 30th January 1649, separated the notion that the king had absolute powers at the head.
After Cromwell had been Lord Protector, which meant that he was king in everything but name, the restoration of the Monarchy from 1660 and the subsequent Bill of Rights, Scottish Claim of Right, the Act of Settlement, the Acts of Union, and a whole slew of other legislation, actively binds both the Crown and the person of the monarch with whom the Crown is theoretically legally inseparable, to the law. In English law and Scottish Law and all British law which follows from 1701, and in every single jurisdiction which exists in a Westminster tradition, the persons of the Crown, all representatives of the Crown, every single officer including the military and the civil service, and all parliamentarians, are all bound by law and may be prosecuted under it. The idea that there is a divine right of the monarch to be above the law, has been quite rightly been razed to the ground. Nobody in the Westminster tradition of law is above it any more. However, America has now decided, that it has thrown that off as well.
It should be absolutely obvious to everyone here, that the reason SCOTUS made this evil decision, was purely to protect Donald Trump. Whatever charges may have been levelled at him for the January 6th riot, insurrection, and sedition, and whether or not he incited the whole malarkey, is now irrelevant. As the former President, SCOTUS has now decided that he is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution; which includes any criminal prosecution related to that day. The fact that there were rioters actively calling to murder members of Congress, is perfectly fine as far as Mr Trump is concerned because the former President now has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.
It logically follows that the actions of Warren G Harding in the Teapot Dome Scandal, and Richard Nixon in Watergate, are both now retrospectively fine. SCOTUS has decided that the President now has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. Likewise it follows that even on the thirty-four felony charges of which Trump has been convicted, and rape charges of which the courts have held Trump to be guilty of, they're also fine - with caveats. If Trump is reelected in November, then in January 2025, his first action as President would be to use his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority to pardon himself. Remember, the nature of Presidential power entitles a President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within that authority; and considering that the power of the President includes the power of Presidential pardon, then that's fine.
I note that the power of impeachments still rests with the Congress; which means that the House and Senate can still remove a President from office. The impeachment process as outlined in Article 1, Section 3 of the US Constitution is a political process rather than a judicial process. Having said that, if the President wanted to send in the Army to murder every single member of Congress, then that would be fine because the President now has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.
Perhaps the most striking comment about this whole idiotic and downright evil affair, is found in the dissenting opinion from Justice Jackson:
Under the individual accountability model, because everyone is subject to the law, the potential of criminal liability operates as a constraint on the actions and decisions of everyone, including the President. After today, that reality is no more. Consequently, our Nation has lost a substantial check on Presidents who would use their official powers to commit crimes with impunity while in office.
So, one might ask, what remains of accountability for Presidents under law?
- Jackson J (in dissent), Trump v United States (2024)
A rhetorical question often does not need an answer; so they tend to hang in the air, demanding to be heard. In this case, the answer to Justice Jackson's rhetorical question is simple: What remains of accountability for Presidents under law? Nothing; legally.
This decision looms as large as Madison v Marbury (1803). In that case, SCOTUS unequivocally stole the power to decide what the law means, for itself. In Trump v United States (2024) they have handed actual immunity from law to the President.
Apart from the actual decision, what I find utterly baffling is the craven toadying and idiotic logic that SCOTUS has used. Granted that 5 of the so-called 'conservative' members of the Court were appointed by Mr Trump (who lost the popular vote), but this kind of sycophancy is just bewildering. This is SCOTUS taking one step closer to the equivalent of Germany's Enabling Act of 1933 and doing so with adoration for their champion:
True, there is no “Presidential immunity clause” in the Constitution. But there is no “‘separation of powers clause’” either. Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 227. Yet that doctrine is undoubtedly carved into the Constitution’s text by its three articles separating powers and vesting the Executive power solely in the President. See ibid. And the Court’s prior decisions, such as Nixon and Fitzgerald, have long recognized that doctrine as mandating certain Presidential privileges and immunities, even though the Constitution contains no explicit “provision for immunity.”
- Jackson J (in dissent), Trump v United States (2024)
Seriously?
The 1st of July 2024 may as well have spit in the face of the 4th of July. The 4th of July 1776 is the day that the United States officially declared its independence from the United Kingdom and the King thereof. The 1st of July 2024 is the day that the United States officially declared that 'no' it actually does like the idea of having a king; so legally went even further and reinstalled the divine right of the king.
Rather, the 1st of July 2024 is the day that the United States officially declared that it has decided to install its third god. The United States now has three gods. Dollar: whom they assign wisdom to. 2A: whom they assign glory to. Now, The President: whom they assign unfettered power to. These are your gods - you must worship them.
One nation under gods, with liberty and justice for all, except the President who now has now have absolute immunity for what they do.
You'd better learn how to serve
And in your lives enthrone him.
All of his needs to prefer,
For it is Trump you're serving.
This is your God, The Orange King.
He calls you now to follow him.
To bring your lives as a daily offering,
Of worship to The Orange King.
No comments:
Post a Comment